The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III and 9 CFR chapter I, subchapters D and G, require inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine of certain animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles intended for importation into, or exportation from, the United States. With some exceptions, when these services must be provided by an APHIS employee on a Sunday or on a holiday, or at any other time outside the APHIS employee's regular duty hours, the Government charges an hourly overtime fee for the services in accordance with 7 CFR part 354 and 9 CFR part 97.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48519-48525, Docket No. 00-087-2), and effective August 11, 2002, we established, for the fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and beyond, reimbursable overtime rates for Sunday, holiday, or other overtime work performed by APHIS employees for any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody, or control of animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine. In this document we are providing notice to the public of the reimbursable overtime fees for fiscal year 2005 (October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005).

Under the regulations in 7 CFR 354.1(a) and 9 CFR 97.1(a), any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody or control of plants, plant products, animals, animal byproducts, or other commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine who requires the services of an APHIS employee on a Sunday or holiday, or at any other time outside the regular tour of duty of that employee, shall sufficiently in advance of the period of Sunday, holiday, or overtime service request the APHIS inspector in charge to furnish the service during the overtime or Sunday or holiday period, and shall, for fiscal year 2005, pay the Government at the rate listed in the following table:

As specified in 7 CFR 354.1(a)(1)(iii) and 9 CFR 97.1(a)(3), the overtime rates to be charged in fiscal year 2005 to owners and operators of aircraft at airports of entry or other places of inspection as a consequence of the operation of the aircraft, for work performed outside of the regularly established hours of service will be as follows:

A minimum charge of 2 hours shall be made for any Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime duty performed by an employee on a day when no work was scheduled for him or her, or which is performed by an employee on his or her regular workday beginning either at least 1 hour before his or her scheduled tour of duty or which is not in direct continuation of the employee's regular tour of duty. In addition, each such period of Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime work to which the 2-hour minimum charge provision applies may include a commuted traveltime period ( see 7 CFR 354.1(a)(2) and 9 CFR 97.1(b)).

User fees to reimburse APHIS for the costs of providing veterinary diagnostic services are contained in 9 CFR part 130 (referred to below as the regulations). These user fees are authorized by section 2509(c) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 136a), which provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may, among other things, prescribe regulations and collect fees to recover the costs of veterinary diagnostics relating to the control and eradication of communicable disease of livestock or poultry within the United States.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2004 (68 FR 25305-25312, Docket No. 00-024-2), and effective June 7, 2004, we established, for the fiscal years 2004 through 2007 and beyond, user fees for certain veterinary diagnostic services, including certain diagnostic tests, reagents, and other veterinary diagnostic materials and services. Veterinary diagnostics is the work performed in a laboratory to determine if a disease-causing organism or chemical agent is present in body tissues or cells and, if so, to identify those organisms or agents. Services in this category include: (1) Performing identification, serology, and pathobiology tests and providing diagnostic reagents and other veterinary diagnostic materials and services at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, IA; and (2) performing laboratory tests and providing diagnostic reagents and other veterinary diagnostic materials and services at the NVSL Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (NVSL FADDL) in Greenport, NY.

APHIS veterinary diagnostic user fees fall into six categories:

(1) Laboratory tests, reagents, and other veterinary diagnostic services performed at NVSL FADDL;

(2) Laboratory tests performed as part of isolation and identification testing at NVSL in Ames;

(3) Laboratory tests performed as part of serology testing at NVSL in Ames;

(4) Laboratory tests performed at the pathobiology laboratory at NVSL in Ames;

(5) Diagnostic reagents produced at NVSL in Ames or other authorized sites; and

(6) Other veterinary diagnostic services or materials provided at NVSL in Ames.

As specified in § 130.14(a), the user fees for diagnostic reagents provided by NVSL FADDL for fiscal year 2005 are as follows:

As specified in § 130.14(b), the user fees for veterinary diagnostic tests performed at NVSL FADDL for fiscal year 2005 are as follows:

As specified in § 130.14(c), the user fees for other veterinary diagnostic services performed at NVSL FADDL for fiscal year 2005 are as follows:

Most of the lands proposed for treatment were recently acquired by the federal government. Before the government acquired these lands, registered herbicides were periodically applied to them by air to control invasive species. These applications were partially effective, so the lands have retained a large component of native vegetation. However, within the project area are expanding populations of leafy spurge, Dalmation toadflax, spotted knapweed, sulfur cinquefoil, Canada thistle, musk thistle, cheat grass and other invasive species. Without active control measures, these invasive weed populations will expand further, replacing native vegetation and decreasing the suitability of the lands as big game winter range.

In 2001, the Lolo National Forest prepared and implemented a Big Game Winter Range and Burned Area Weed Management Project. That project authorized similar control treatments on ecologically equivalent lands across 21,750 acres. Treatments authorized by that EIS have been monitored to determine their effectiveness in controlling invasive species and their effects on other resources. This EIS will rely on the effects analyses disclosed in that EIS. This project will also rely on monitoring results to support disclosures of site-specific effects anticipated.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EIS's must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Secondly, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that people interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns about the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.)

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in December 2004. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date of the EPA's notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by February 2005.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review the RAC accomplishments from 2002 to 2004, (2) close out any old business.

On June 3, 2004, NMFS published a proposed policy addressing the role of hatchery produced Pacific salmon and O. mykiss in ESA listing determinations (69 FR 31354; “proposed hatchery listing policy”). The proposed hatchery listing policy would supersede NMFS' 1993 Interim Policy on salmonid artificial (hatchery) propagation (58 FR 17573; April 5, 1993), which requires revision following the 2001 U.S. District Court ruling in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans (161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001; appeal dismissed, 358 F.3d 1181 (9 th Cir. 2004); Alsea ruling). The Alsea ruling held that NMFS had made an improper distinction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not listing certain artificially propagated salmon populations determined to be part of the same Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as listed natural populations. Under the proposed hatchery listing policy: hatchery fish with a level of genetic divergence relative to local natural populations that is no more than would be expected between closely related populations within the ESU would be included as part of the ESU; within-ESU hatchery fish would be considered in determining whether the ESU should be listed under the ESA; and within-ESU hatchery fish would be included in any listing of the ESU. NMFS applied this proposed policy in conducting its comprehensive review of ESA listing status for 26 previously listed ESUs, and one candidate ESU, of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss .

Several requests have been received to extend the comment period for the proposed hatchery listing policy. The comment period for the proposed policy was to end on September 1, 2004. NMFS is extending the comment period until October 20, 2004, to allow for adequate opportunity for public comment (see DATES and ADDRESSES ).

Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In past ESA rule-making NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals. This format, although providing an alternative means of public input, is time consuming for the attendees and does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including opportunities for individuals to discuss specific elements of the proposals with agency staff in small groups. The “open-house” format of the public meetings, described below, will enhance the ability of the public to engage effectively in the rulemaking process, while respecting their valuable time and resources.

NMFS believes that the proposed hatchery listing policy and the subsequent proposed listing determinations for 27 West Coast ESUs of salmon and O. mykiss (see 69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004) are important to salmon recovery. Public engagement on these intimately related proposals will be combined into the same public meetings to make efficient use of the agency's and the public's time and resources.

Afternoon Practitioners' Sessions - Afternoon sessions (1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) will be provided for local practitioners and stakeholders involved with managing the ESA on a regular basis, including: tribal governments; forestry and agricultural interests; home builders and developers; the sport and commercial fishing community; the environmental community; the business community; utility and special districts; local government elected officials and their staff; other locally-based Federal and state agencies; and public interest groups. The structure of these afternoon meetings will be tailored to allow practitioners and NMFS staff to discuss the specific issues that are of local concern. Attendance at the afternoon sessions will be on a pre-registration basis. Information on attending the practitioners' afternoon sessions is available from NMFS upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above) as well as on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/ .

Evening Open House and Public Testimony - Evening “open house” sessions designed for broader public participation will be conducted on the same day as the afternoon practitioners' sessions. The “open house” format will provide the general public with an opportunity to meet with NMFS staff in small groups on specific topics in order to learn more about the proposals and their possible impacts on their communities. These evening meetings will also provide opportunities for the public to make formal recorded comments on the proposals. The preferred means of providing public comment for the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting. In addition, blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the evening meetings for those without prepared written comments, and facilities will also be provided for recording oral testimony. The evening sessions will be open from 6:30 p.m to 9:30 p.m. Because these sessions will be designed as open houses where the public can move from “station” to “station” and discuss their particular interests with NMFS staff, members of the local community can come and go from the meeting as they please. For those who are interested, there will also be a short presentation on the proposed hatchery listing policy and the proposed listing determinations from NMFS beginning at 6:30 p.m. NMFS hopes that this format will allow busy community members to participate without necessarily attending the entire evening. Members of the public wishing to attend the evening open house meetings will receive the notification through advertising, NMFS Northwest Region's web page( http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/ ), and public notices published in their community. There is no need to register; just drop in anytime during the course of the evening event.

Public meetings, including both afternoon practitioners' (1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and evening open house sessions (6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.), will be held at eight locations in the Pacific Northwest from mid-September to mid-October. The specific dates and locations of these meetings are listed below:

(1) September 14, 2004, at the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) Auditorium, 327 N. Wenatchee Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801.

(2) September 16, 2004, at the Red Lion Hotel Columbia Center, N. 1101 Columbia Center Blvd, Kennewick, WA 99336.

(3) September 22, 2004, at the Shilo Inn Hotel,536 SW Elizabeth, Newport, OR 97635.

(4) September 28, 2004, at the Stagecoach Inn, 201 Highway 93 North, Salmon, ID 83467.

(5) September 30, 2004, at the Red Lion Hotel, 621 21st St., Lewiston, ID 83501.

(6) October 5, 2004, at the Radisson Hotel (SeaTac Airport), 17001 Pacific Highway South, Seattle WA 98118.

(7) October 7, 2004, at Umpqua Community College, 1140 College Rd., Roseburg, OR 97470.

(8) October 13, 2004, at the Portland Building, 1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR 97204.

Directions to the meeting locations can be obtained on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/ . Dates and locations of public hearings to be held in California will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

In scheduling these public meetings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed hatchery listing policy directly with staff during the public comment period. These public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposals (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES , above) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on October 20, 2004.

Copies of the Federal Register notices and related materials cited in this document are available on the Internet at http://nwr.noaa.gov , or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).

Recovery Plans (1) describe actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), (2) establish criteria for the downlisting or delisting of such species, and (3) estimate the time and costs required to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of Recovery Plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the recovery of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the ESA, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during Recovery Plan development. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period in the course of finalizing this Recovery Plan.

Right whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act in June 1970 (35 FR 8495). Right whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic were until recently considered a single species ( E. glacialis ), while the southern right whale ( E. australis ) was considered a separate, but closely related species. The 1991 Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale ( E. glacialis ) addressed right whales throughout the northern hemisphere. However, recent genetic studies provide strong evidence of separate specific status for North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, and accordingly have suggested changing the binomial for the North Pacific population. The set of taxonomic classifications put forth were accepted by the International Whaling Commission. NMFS revised the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife to reflect this on April 10, 2003 (68 FR 17560). The revised classifications are as follows: the North Atlantic right whale ( E. glacialis ); the North Pacific right whale ( E. japonica ); and the Southern right whale ( E. australis ). These classifications will be used for the purposes of this Plan, and for those of a separate plan being drafted for the North Pacific right whale. Therefore, this revised Plan addresses only status, recovery actions needed, and criteria for the North Atlantic right whale.

Historically depleted by commercial whaling, the North Atlantic right whale population at present numbers approximately 300 individuals, and is impacted both directly and indirectly by human activities primarily in the form of vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear. These impacts have contributed to a lack of recovery for the species.

A recovery plan was completed for the Northern right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) in 1991, which referred to the North Atlantic right whale as a population. NMFS has revised the Plan according to: public comments received, recent information, and a recently revised plan format. In particular, NMFS further refined recovery criteria for the species and has revised the Plan accordingly. Once finalized, NMFS will use this Plan to guide research and conservation activities designed to promote the recovery of North Atlantic right whales.

The Plan includes the following prioritized objectives to recover the North Atlantic right whale: (1) Minimize sources of human-caused death, injury, and disturbance; (2) develop demographically-based recovery criteria; (3) identify, characterize, protect, and monitor important habitats; (4) monitor the status and trends of abundance and distribution of the western North Atlantic right whale population; (5) and coordinate Federal, state, international, and private efforts to implement the Recovery Plan. The ultimate goal of the Plan is to promote the recovery of the North Atlantic right whale to a level sufficient to warrant its removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Act. The intermediate goal is to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened.

Criteria for reclassification of the North Atlantic right whale are included in the Plan. In summary, the North Atlantic right whale may be reclassified from endangered to threatened when all of the following have been met: (1) the population structure of right whales (including, but not limited to, such parameters as abundance, growth rate, age structure, gender ratios) is indicative of a biologically significant increasing population; (2) the population has increased for a period of 20 years at an average rate of increase of 2 percent per year or more; (3) all five listing factors are addressed; and (4) given current and projected conditions, the population has no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years. For the purposes of the Plan, quasi-extinction is defined by NMFS as a small, critical population threshold whose lower boundary may be unacceptable for the continued survival of a species. For instance, this could be the population size at which factors such as demographics, inbreeding depression, or behavioral constraints prohibit survival (Ginzburg et al. , 1982 as cited in Burgman et al. , 1993).

Criteria for delisting the North Atlantic right whale are not included in the Plan because the current abundance of North Atlantic right whales is an order of magnitude less than an abundance at which NMFS would consider delisting the species, and decades of population growth likely would be required before the population could attain such an abundance. In addition, conditions related to delisting are now too distant and hypothetical to realistically develop specific criteria. Such criteria will be included in a future revision of the Recovery Plan well before the population is at a level when delisting becomes a reasonable decision.

Previous public comments have been incorporated into the current updated version of the Plan. NMFS published a notice of availability of a revised draft Recovery Plan for the western North Atlantic right whale (2001 draft Plan) in the Federal Register on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36260) and extended the comment period on the draft Plan on August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44115). Comments were received from 15 individuals and organizations during the comment period. Reviewers' comments and NMFS' response to the comments are discussed in this document.

On June 14, 2004 (69 FR 32991), NMFS announced the receipt of a rulemaking petition to protect deep-sea coral and sponge habitat and requested comments until August 13, 2004. NMFS received a request to extend the public comment period to allow more time to review of existing science and to address the petition's requests. NMFS decided to re-open the comment period from August 31, 2004 to October 15, 2004 to allow Fishery Management Councils, Federal agencies, science organizations, and the general public more time to consider the petition's recommendations to ensure thorough public comment. Comments that were received between August 13, 2004, and August 31, 2004 will also be deemed timely received.

The petition filed by Oceana states that deep-sea coral and sponge habitat are comprised of long-lived, slow-growing organisms that are especially vulnerable to destructive fishing practices, such as the use of bottom-tending mobile fishing gear. The petition cites that without immediate protection, many of these sensitive deep-sea coral and sponge habitats will suffer irreparable harm.

The petition cites specific legal responsibilities of NMFS for essential fish habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the EFH guidelines at 50 CFR 600, subparts J and K, and concludes that NMFS must: identify and describe deep-sea coral and sponge habitats as EFH; designate some, if not all, of these habitat types as HAPCs; take appropriate measures to minimize to the extent practicable adverse fishing effects on this EFH; and protect such habitat from other forms of destructive activity. The petition gives a short overview of known deep-sea coral and sponge habitat in regions off the mainland United States, including areas known in the Alaska, Pacific, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico fishery management regions. The petition asserts that deep-sea coral and sponge habitats satisfy the definition of EFH in the Magnuson- Stevens Act and concludes that such areas must be identified and described as EFH under the relevant FMPs. In addition, the petition states that deep-sea coral and sponge habitats should be identified as HAPCs because they meet the definition of HAPC and satisfy one or more of the criteria set forth in the EFH guidelines for creating HAPCs. Further, the petition argues that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to protect areas identified as EFH and HAPC and that such protection, as articulated in the petition, is “practicable.” Finally, the petition asserts that deep-sea coral and sponge habitats must be protected for its own sake, meaning if the Secretary does not protect such habitats through existing FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary and the Regional Fishery Management Councils to develop FMPs specifically for the protection of deep-sea corals and sponges.

The petition specifically requests that NMFS immediately initiate rulemaking to protect deep-sea coral and sponge habitats in the U.S. EEZ by taking the following measures:

The exact and complete assertions of legal responsibilities under Federal law are contained in the text of Oceana's petition, which is available via the internet at the following NMFS web address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/DSC_petition/Oceana . Also, anyone may obtain a copy of this petition by contacting NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA has determined that the petition contains enough information to enable NMFS to consider the substance of the petition. NMFS will consider public comments received in determining whether to proceed with the development of the regulations requested by Oceana. Additionally, NMFS, by separate letter, has requested each Regional Fishery Management Council assist in evaluating this petition. Upon determining whether to initiate the requested rulemaking, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the agency's final disposition of the Oceana petition request.

The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) (16 U.S.C. 1385), as amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to make a finding based on the results of scientific research, information obtained under the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and any other relevant information, as to whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). On December 31, 2002, the Assistant Administrator, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, issued a final finding under section (g)(2) of the DPCIA, and published notification in the Federal Register on January 15, 2003 (68 FR 2010).

In the final finding, the Assistant Administrator determined that the chase and intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is not having a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP. The final finding changed the definition of “dolphin-safe” for tuna products containing tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels with carrying capacity greater than 400 short tons and sold in the United States. Based upon the final finding, the definition of dolphin-safe for such tuna is governed by the provisions of section (h)(1) of the DPCIA. Under this definition, “dolphin-safe” means that dolphins can be encircled or chased during the trip in which tuna was harvested, but that no dolphins can be killed or seriously injured in the set in which the tuna was harvested.

On December 31, 2002, Earth Island Institute, eight organizations, and one individual person (Plaintiffs), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This complaint challenged the Assistant Administrator's final finding and sought to enjoin any change in the dolphin-safe labeling standard for tuna harvested with purse seine nets.

On January 21, 2003, the Court, at the request of all parties, issued an order that stayed the implementation of the final finding. Under the terms of the order, the labeling standard for “dolphin-safe” tuna was governed by the provisions of (h)(2) of the DPCIA. Under that provision, tuna are deemed dolphin safe if “no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught.” The terms of the order further provided that this labeling standard would remain in effect for 90 days from the date of the order or until the Court issued a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, whichever was earlier.

On April 10, 2003, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Under the Court's order, NMFS was prohibited from taking any action under the DPCIA to allow any tuna product to be labeled as “dolphin-safe” that was harvested using purse seine nets intentionally set on dolphins in the ETP. As a result of the terms of the Court's order, the definition of dolphin-safe continued to mean that Ano tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught” until further order of the Court.

On May 24, 2004, all parties simultaneously motioned the Court for summary judgment. On August 9, 2004, the Court ruled on the motions for summary judgment and found that the final finding made by the Assistant Administrator on December 31, 2002, was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(c).” Under the terms of this order, the labeling standard for “dolphin-safe” tuna shall be governed by the provisions of (h)(2) of the DPCIA. Under that provision, tuna are deemed dolphin safe if “no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught.”

Following introductions, the Council will hold elections for 2004-05 officers. The Council's Habitat/Marine Protected Area Committee will present its recommendations for essential fish habitat measures to be included in Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The recommendations will be followed by a brief public comment period during which any member of the public may bring forward items relevant to Council business but not otherwise listed on the agenda for this meeting. The remainder of the day will be spent on sea scallop issues. During the Scallop Committee Report the Council will receive management advice from the Scallop Plan Development Team based on the most recent scallop assessment and discuss the possible initiation of a special framework adjustment to address new management issues during the 2005 fishing year. Management issues under consideration relate to overfishing, sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures, actions to cap or reduce general category scallop landings and/or improve reporting, and measures that would change the 2005 open area days-at-sea allocation as the result of management actions taken in Framework Adjustment 16/39.

During the Wednesday morning session the Council will receive reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Monkfish Committee will then ask for final approval of measures to be included in Amendment 2 to the Monkfish FMP. This will occur following review and discussion of Monkfish Advisory Panel and Oversight Committee recommendations and public comments submitted to the Council. This joint FMP also requires approval by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prior to the submission of final documents.

The Research Steering Committee will ask the Council for approval of criteria/standards for determining whether research projects have undergone a sufficient technical review before information is used for management purposes. Other recommendations to be forwarded to the Council address day-at-sea use, the disposition of catch and vessel compensation when boats are engaged in cooperative research. The Red Crab Committee will offer its recommendations for specifications for the 2005 fishing year and for Framework Adjustment 1 to the FMP, an action that could modify the annual review and specification process. The Groundfish Committee will provide an update on the development of Framework Adjustment 40B to the Northeast Multispecies FMP including a review of proposed management measures and grouping of measures into alternatives. In addition, there will be a briefing of recent reports of juvenile haddock incidental catches in the herring mid-water trawl fishery. The Council's Transboundary Management Guidance Committee will report on its recent meeting and offer recommendations for 2005 Total Allowable Catches for yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock in the U.S./Canada area and on other related management issues. The Council meeting will adjourn following after any other outstanding business is addressed.

Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The ATPDEA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The ATPDEA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13277 (67 FR 70305) and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Redelegation of Authority and Further Assignment of Functions (67 FR 71606), the President's authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the ATPDEA has been delegated to CITA.

On August 23, 2004, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Textiles Erre Emme Ltda of Bogota, Colombia, alleging that certain polyester monofilament texturized, raw, white yarn, of denier 20D/F1, classified in subheading 5402.33.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in women's and children's apparel, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the ATPDEA for such apparel that are woven or knit in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from such yarn.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other yarns that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for these yarns for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than September 15, 2004. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarns stating that it produces the yarns that are the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).

On August 24, 2004, the Chairman of CITA received two petitions on behalf of Fishman & Tobin alleging that certain woven fabrics, of the specifications detailed below, classified in the indicated HTSUS subheadings, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for apparel articles that are cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding these requests, particularly with respect to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other fabrics that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the fabric for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than September 15, 2004. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that this fabric can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the fabric stating that it produces the fabric that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

Title: Practice by Former Members and Employees of the Commission (OMB Control No. 3038-0025). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Rule 140.735-6 governs the practice before the Commission of former members and employees of the Commission and is intended to ensure that the Commission is aware of any existing conflict of interest. The rule generally requires former members and employees who are employed or retained to represent any person before the Commission within two years of the termination of their CFTC employment to file a brief written statement with the Commission's Office of General Counsel. The proposed rule was promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Section 8a(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (1994), as amended.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 9, 2004 (69 FR 32325-02).

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average .10 hours per response to file the brief written statement. This estimate includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 3.

Estimated Number of Responses: 4.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: .10 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0025 in any correspondence.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

1. RRK Holdings, Inc., (hereinafter “Respondent”) formerly known as Roto Zip Tool Corporation (hereinafter “Roto Zip”) enters into this Settlement Agreement and Order (hereinafter, “Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) with the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”), and agrees to the entry of the attached Order incorporated by reference herein. The Settlement Agreement resolves the Commission staff's allegations set forth below.

2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory commission responsible for the enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq .

3. Respondent, established in September of 1977 as Roto Zip Tool Corporation, is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Its principal office is located at 4524 Blue Mounds Trail, Black Earth, Wisconsin 53515. On August 1, 2003, Roto Zip sold all of its assets to the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and subsequently ceased operations. Roto Zip was renamed RRK Holdings, Inc.

4. Between 1999 and October 2001, Respondent manufactured and distributed approximately 1.4 million spiral saws under the model names Revolution, Rebel and Solaris. The spiral saws are hand-held power tools with interchangeable spiral bits. The Rebel was manufactured for Respondent by two different companies, SB Power Tools and Scientific Molding Corporation, Ltd. (hereinafter “SMC”). The Revolution and Solaris were manufactured exclusively by SMC.

5. The saws were sold to and/or used by consumers for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise and are, therefore, “consumer products” as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Roto Zip was a “manufacturer” and “distributor” of the spiral saws which were “distributed into commerce” as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(4), (5), (11) and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (5), (11) and (12).

6. Certain Revolution, Rebel and Solaris spiral saws exhibited a loose fit between the handle and the tool body. The loose fit was a result of variations in the placement of the housing receptacle on the tool body and the length of the mating stud on the handle. The spiral saws are defective because the handle, if loose, could detach from the body of the saw while the saw is in use. The falling saw could cause lacerations and other injuries to consumers.

7. In the fall of 2000, Respondent began receiving notice of saws detaching from the handles. The precise number of detaching incidents in 2000 is not available because Respondent recorded such incidents under the general term “broken handle”. Between January 1, 2001 and October 23, 2001 (the date upon which Respondent submitted a full report to the Commission), Respondent had received notice of at least 235 alleged incidents of saws detaching from handles. (This number of incidents is in addition to numerous reports of the handle being too loose).

8. Between the fall of 2000 and October 23, 2001, Respondent received notice of twenty injuries alleged to be due to the saw detaching from the handle while the saw was in use. Several consumers received lacerations requiring sutures to hands and legs, and one report where a consumer allegedly received serious laceration injuries necessitating surgery.

9. In February of 2001, Respondent determined that the handles on Rebel models manufactured by SB Power Tools were too loose and required that SB Power Tools modify the product for a tighter fit. However, Respondent continued to receive complaints about the saw falling off the handles. As a result, Respondent investigated and determined that the location of the receptacle housing in the tool body and the length of the mating stud were not uniform. On March 20, 2001, Respondent made a design change to all three spiral saw models and made changes to quality control to require a visual inspection and a tolerance test of every saw. About the same time, Respondent asked SMC to modify its inventory. By the end of March 2001, Respondent had received 81 spiral saw warranty returns due to the saws detaching.

10. On September 11, 2001, the Commission conducted an establishment inspection of Respondent's headquarters in response to incident reports it had received. Following that inspection, Respondent filed a full report pursuant to section 15(b) of the CPSA on October 23, 2001.

11. By the time Respondent made design changes on March 29, 2001, it had obtained information which reasonably supported the conclusion that the Revolution, Solaris and Rebel spiral saws contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created and unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, but failed to report such information in a timely manner to the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2), (3).

12. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), Respondent violated 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

13. Respondent committed this failure to report to the Commission “knowingly” as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d),thus, subjecting Respondent to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069.

15. Respondent denies the staff's allegations in paragraphs 6 through 10 that the spiral saws were defective and that it violated the CPSA as set forth in paragraphs 11 through 13. In settling this matter, Respondent does not admit any fault, liability or statutory or regulatory violation.

16. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Respondent under the consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051 et. seq.

17. Respondent agrees to be bound by and comply with this Settlement Agreement and Order.

18. This Agreement is entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent or a determination by the Commission that Respondent knowingly violated the CPSA's reporting requirement.

19. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty of one hundred thousand and 00/100 dollars ($100,000.00), in full settlement of this matter, and payable within twenty (20) calendar days of receiving service of the final Settlement Agreement and Order.

20. Upon final acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Respondent knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter (1) to an administrative hearing, (2) to judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's actions, (3) to a determination by the Commission as to whether Respondent failed to comply with CPSA and the underlying regulations, (4) to a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law and (5) to any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

21. Upon provisional acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission, this Agreement shall be placed on the public record and shall be published in the Federal Register in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written objections within 15 days, the Agreement will be deemed finally accepted on the 16th day after the date it is published in the Federal Register .

22. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

23. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq. Violation of this Order may subject Respondent to appropriate legal action.

24. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or contradict its terms.

25. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to Respondent and each of its successors and assigns.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement between Respondent RRK Holdings, Inc. and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over RRK Holdings, Inc., and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public interest, it is Ordered that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted and it is Further Ordered that RRK Holdings, Inc. shall pay the United States Treasury a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred thousand and 00/100 dollars, ($100,000.00), payable within twenty (20) days of the service of the Final Order upon RRK Holdings, Inc.

The information collection is used for the Annual Report to Congress as authorized by the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 10 USC 2391(c), and Executive Order 12788. The data form asks respondents to provide information for 8 data fields per parcel describing reuse of the base, including new tenants, zoning, leasing, square feet, and number of new jobs.

In the interest of national security, and in accordance with 5, U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), the afternoon session on September 21, 2004 may be closed to the public. In addition, any classified portions of the meeting minutes may be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(f)(2). The morning session on September 21, 2004 and the entire session on September 22, 2004 will be open to the public. Open sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend, appear before or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

The project study consists of determining the need for flood damage reduction and maintaining navigation on the Mississippi River, Alexander County, IL. The area of focus is the Mississippi River from RM 21 to RM 34. The project is authorized under a resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure adopted March 7, 1996, as well as Section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 and the 1928 Flood Control Act (H.R. 8497). Studies involve reevaluation of the project design flood flowline, evaluating alternatives that will not affect navigation, and developing ecosystem restoration features. The Flood Control Act of 1928 and WRDA 1986 authorized the project originally. A final EIS, entitled Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries, Mississippi River Levees (MRL) and Channel Improvement , was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Vicksburg District, in February 1976. This document was filed with the Council of Environmental Quality in April 1976. Based on additional environmental laws and regulations enacted after 1976, information from other federal agencies, and litigation by private environmental groups, the decision was made to supplement the 1976 FEIS to cover construction of all remaining Mississippi River mainline levees and seepage control with a supplemental FEIS, Mississippi River Mainline Levees Enlargement and Seepage Control , prepared by USACE, Vicksburg, Memphis, and New Orleans districts, dated July 1998. It covered a total of 225 potential work items along the mainstem of the Mississippi River, which included construction of borrow areas for fill material, levee enlargements, and installation of additional seepage control measures. The resolution by Congress in 1996, the Flood Control Act of 1928, as amended, and WRDA 1996 authorized the present study and reevaluation of the MRL system. The Len Small Levee Project was not included in the 1998 supplemental EIS. It was decided that a separate feasibility study should be conducted because of its complexity. Len Small Levee is a privately owned levee that is being studied because of its effect on the Commerce to Birds Point section of the federal MRL system. Extensive hydraulics and other engineering and environmental analyses are being conducted to evaluate project alternatives.

Project alternatives are being formulated and analyzed in order to develop an optimal plan. Alternatives to be considered include possible modifications to the MRL system, routing floodwaters across Dogtooth Bend Peninsula, and no federal action. An ecosystem restoration plan is also being developed.

A public involvement program has been initiated and will be maintained throughout the study. The broad goal is to identify significant issues through an exchange of information on project-related topics. Input will be sought from the public including local residents, agencies, and individuals from the private sector. Federally recognized American Indian tribes and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer will be consulted regarding cultural resources in the study area. Status reports will be made to interested parties throughout the study. A public scoping meeting was held on March 18, 2003, in Tamms, IL. Comments and concerns raised at this meeting will be addressed in the study to the extent justified. It is anticipated that a draft SEIS will be available for public review during 2004. It is likely that a workshop will be held prior to release of the draft EIS to gain additional input from interested parties. A public hearing will be held during the draft EIS review period to receive comments and questions concerning the draft report.

The proposed project is located in the southern portion of the Port of Long Beach, California. The proposed dredge and fill activities would take place at Piers D, E and F and would involve redeveloping portions of Pier D and reconfiguring existing wharves and berths at Piers E and F to create a single 342-acre marine terminal to accommodate increasing cargo volumes being produced by the new generation of larger container vessels.

The project applicant, the Port of Long Beach, proposes to permanently impact approximately 70 acres of open-water habitat for dredge and fill activities and to rehabilitate 272 acres of existing terminal area at Piers D, E and F for the construction of a new 342-acre container terminal in the Port of Long Beach. The proposed project would reconfigure existing wharves and berths at Piers D, E and F into one 4,250-foot-long wharf with four deep-water berths, a container terminal yard that includes 70 acres of new land and 272 acres of rehabilitated land and an intermodal rail yard. The specific components of the proposed project would include: widening Slip Number Three to 480 feet and deepening it to −55 to −60 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW); excavating one million cubic yards of material from Berths D28-D31; filling Slip One with 2.7 million cubic yards of structurally suitable dredge and excavated material; placement of an additional 770,000 cubic yards in waters of the United States for the construction of a rock dike to the contain the proposed fill at Slip One; filling the East Basin between Piers E and F with 4.06 million cubic yards of dredged material, including the construction of a rock dike to contain the fill area; and construction of 2,260 linear feet of pile supported concrete wharves. The proposed construction and rehabilitation activities would be completed over a 12-year period. All of the above construction activities would include the demolition of existing terminal facilities as well as existing buildings and infrastructure in both open water and upland areas.

There are several potential environmental issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include:

1. Geological issues including dredging and stabilization of fill areas.

2. Potential impacts to marine biological resources.

3. Impacts to air quality.

4. Traffic, including navigation issues and transportation related impacts.

5. Potential noise impacts.

6. Impacts to public utilities and services.

7. Impact to aesthetic resources.

8. Potential impacts on public health and safety.

9. Cumulative impacts.

Several alternatives are being considered for the proposed marine terminal. These alternatives will be further formulated and developed during the scoping process and an appropriate range of alternatives, including the no federal action alternative, will be considered in the Draft EIS/EIR.

A public meeting will be held to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Participation in the public meeting by Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged.

The Corps of Engineers will also be consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, the EIS/EIR will assess the consistency of the proposed Action with the Coastal Zone Management Act and potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The public scoping meeting for the Draft EIS/EIR will be held at the Port of Long Beach on September 27, 2004 and will start at 6:30 PM. Written comments will be received until October 4, 2004.

The Draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published and circulated in April of 2005, and a Public Hearing will be held after its publication.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Written Application for the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind Formula Grant.

Frequency: Every three years.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 56.

 Burden Hours: 9.

Abstract: This document is used by States to request funds to administer the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind (IL-OIB) program. The IL-OIB is provided for under Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to assist individuals who are age 55 or older whose significant visual impairment makes competitive employment extremely difficult to attain but for whom independent living goals are feasible.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2560. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g ., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Final Grant Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 100.

 Burden Hours: 500.

Abstract: The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Final Grant Report will be used by grantees at the end of the project period to show necessary data on the accomplishment of approved activities. The report will identify, by occupation and contributed time, key personnel. It will confirm the schools and the number of students served. It will show changes in school library access hours. School districts will show the differences between the number of library resources and computers before and during the year of the award. The beneficiaries of professional development activities, if applicable, are also requested. The breakdown of grant expenditures per activity is also described. Important data on student reading achievement by school is also requested.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2564. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the risk assessments for metam-sodium, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. Since other entities also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0159. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0159. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0159. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0159.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0159. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA is making available risk assessments that have been developed as part of the Agency's public participation process for making reregistration eligibility decisions for the organophosphates and other pesticides consistent with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. Metam-sodium does not have tolerances under FFDCA and thus is not subject to tolerance reassessment. The Agency's human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and other related documents for metam-sodium, and public comments received in response to the preliminary risk assessments are available in the individual pesticide docket. As additional comments, reviews, and risk assessment modifications become available, these will also be docketed for metam-sodium.

The Agency cautions that the metam-sodium revised risk assessments are still considered to be preliminary and that further refinements may be appropriate. These documents reflect only the work and analysis conducted as of the time they were produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions they contain may change.

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide additional written comments and input to the Agency on the risk assessments for the pesticide specified in this notice. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as acres treated per day or typical application rates, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific chemical. Comments should be limited to issues raised within the risk assessments and associated documents. All comments should be submitted by October 31, 2004, using the methods in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Comments will become part of the Agency record for metam-sodium.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0225. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA's Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0225. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0226. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA's Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0226. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0226. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0226.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0226. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the pesticide petition.

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition (PP) is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (4G6808) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc., P.O. Box 12257, 3054 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2257, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346(d), to amend 40 CFR part 174 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant-pesticide modified Cry3A protein (mCry3A) and the genetic material necessary for its production in or on all corn.

On June 23, 2004, the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, submitted a petition requesting the EPA to declare the Ohio waters of Lake Erie a No Discharge Zone under section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3) and 40 CFR 140.4(a). Section 312(f)(3) states that “After the effective date of the initial standards and regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the waters within such State require greater environmental protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except that no prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such waters to which the prohibition would apply.”

The petition states that there are 81,371 licensed watercraft in the counties bordering Lake Erie with 22% of the motorized boat users having either a portable or permanent toilet on board and that approximately 353 marinas are located with access to the lake. Of these, 121 marinas have pumpout and/or dump stations for vessel sewage. A listing of these facilities and their location has been submitted with the petition. In addition, there are over 700 shoreline public restrooms available at public boat launches, docks and parks. Also, there are nine ports with 35 commercial docking facilities with no pumpout stations. However, the petition states that these ports are serviced by private septage tanker trucks. Once the Regional Administrator determines that adequate facilities are available, the State of Ohio has the authority pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a) to completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from all vessels into the waters of Lake Erie under its jurisdiction.

Comments and views regarding this petition, pending a determination by the Regional Administrator, may be filed within 30 days of publication of this notice. These should be addressed to Irvin J. Dzikowski P.E. at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 WN-16J, 77 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

GSA Form 3357 is needed by GSA contract and staff appraisers who use the form for estimating parking rates assessed on Federal agencies occupying space in GSA owned or controlled buildings.

Respondents: 260

Responses Per Respondent: 5

Total Responses: 1300

Hours Per Response: 1.6

Total Burden Hours: 2,080

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0043, Appraisal of Fair Annual Parking Rate Per Space for Standard Level User Charge; GSA Form 3357, in all correspondence.

After an analysis of additional data, GSA has determined that current lodging rates for certain localities do not adequately reflect the lodging economics in those areas.

GSA issues/publishes the CONUS per diem rates, formerly published in Appendix A to 41 CFR chapter 301, solely on the internet at http://www.gsa.gov/perdiem. This process, implemented in 2003, ensures more timely increases or decreases in per diem rates established by GSA for Federal employees on official travel within CONUS. Notices published periodically in the Federal Register , such as this one, now constitute the only notification of revisions in CONUS per diem rates to agencies.

FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Development and Coordination are sponsoring a public workshop. The workshop will be divided into interactive sessions in which leaders in the plague research field will present topics of particular relevance to plague vaccines. The sessions will include the following topics: (1) Introduction to the “Animal Rule,” (2) pathogenesis of plague, (3) plague vaccines and assessment of immune responses, (4) human disease and relevant animal models, and (5) implementation of the “Animal Rule” for plague vaccines. In addition, an expert panel will discuss the issues that will be critical for the development and eventual licensure of plague vaccines. The workshop's goal is to expedite the development and licensure of new plague vaccines by providing information critical to the development of the following: (1) Appropriate animal models, (2) immuno-assays, and (3) testing plans for vaccine evaluation.

Transcripts : Transcripts of the workshop may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the workshop at a cost of 10 cents per page. Additionally, the transcript will be placed on the FDA Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm .

You may also obtain up-to-date meeting information by calling the Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area).

The goal of this workshop is to provide a public forum for input and discussion concerning opportunities for the enhancement of scientific knowledge and tools for safety, efficacy, and product quality that can be used to more effectively and efficiently develop and evaluate new biological products in the areas described.

On March 16, 2004, FDA released a report addressing the recent slowdown in innovative medical therapies submitted to FDA for approval entitled “Innovation/Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products” at http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ . That report describes the urgent need to create the scientific and technological “tools” to modernize the medical product development process—the Critical Path—to make medical product development more predictable and less costly.

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is seeking input from government and nongovernment research organizations, medical professional organizations, health care practitioners, patients, disease interest groups, pharmaceutical and biological product manufacturers and their industry organizations, and others with interests in facilitating development of the biological products that CBER regulates. The workshop will cover delineation of opportunities in key technologies and medical science knowledge needed to contribute to science based evaluation of the safety and efficacy of those biological products, and innovative development processes to manufacture them. FDA will discuss and welcomes input concerning all applicable areas of science including, but not limited to, bench laboratory investigations, clinical research and clinical trial design and execution, facility and manufacturing process research, statistical and epidemiological research, and computer science and computer modeling research. The workshop will not cover discussions of biological product discovery and invention or regulatory policies. The workshop will include presentations by FDA speakers and breakout sessions with panels composed of both FDA staff and non-FDA stakeholders, with an opportunity for public questions and comments.

FDA will post the agenda for this public workshop, when finalized on CBER's Web sites at http://www.fda.gov/cber/scireg.htm and http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm .

Transcripts : Please note that transcripts of the workshop will not be prepared.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of The proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title: Articles Assembled Abroad with Textile Components Cut to Shape in the U.S.

OMB Number: 1651-0070.

Form Number: N/A.

Abstract: This collection of information enables CBP to ascertain whether the conditions and requirements relating to 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS), have been met.

Current Actions: This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, individuals, institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 80 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 667.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: $13,340.

If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429.

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge is located in western Washington at the southern end of Puget Sound in Thurston and Pierce counties. The Refuge protects one of the few relatively undeveloped large estuaries remaining in Puget Sound. It provides crucial habitat for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, including many waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and seabirds. The Refuge also contains regionally important migration and rearing habitat for salmon, particularly the federally threatened fall chinook salmon. Each year, more than 100,000 visitors come to view wildlife and enjoy and learn about Refuge habitats and the wildlife they support.

The Proposed Action is to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that best achieves the purposes for which the Refuge was established; furthers its vision and goals; contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; addresses significant issues and applicable mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. Implementing the CCP will enable the Refuge to fulfill its critical role in the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources of the Nisqually River delta and lower watershed, and to provide high quality environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for Refuge visitors. The Service analyzed four alternatives for future management of the Refuge; of these, Alternative D has been identified as the preferred alternative.

Alternative D, modified from the Draft CCP/EIS, would provide a Refuge boundary expansion of 3,479 acres. Restoration of 699 acres of estuarine habitat would be accomplished through removal of a large portion of the exterior Brown Farm Dike. The remaining 263-acre area within a newly constructed dike system would be managed to provide greatly improved freshwater wetland and riparian habitats. Thirty-eight acres of valuable forested surge plain habitat would be restored along the Nisqually River. The environmental education program would be improved and expanded to serve 15,000 students per year. Due to dike removal, the existing 5.5-mile wildlife observation loop trail would be reduced to a 3.5-mile round trip trail, and bank fishing on McAllister Creek would no longer be offered. A new 2.5-mile trail would be developed on Tribal and Refuge properties east of the Nisqually River and a primitive 0.5-mile trail would be provided in surge plain habitat. New fishing opportunities could be provided in the future if appropriate lands were acquired. A seasonal waterfowl hunting program open seven days per week, would be provided on 191 acres of Refuge lands. A speed limit of five miles per hour would be established for all water craft in Refuge waters.

Public comments were requested, considered, and incorporated throughout the planning process in numerous ways. Public outreach has included open houses, public meetings, technical workgroups, planning update mailings, and Federal Register notices. Three previous notices were published in the Federal Register concerning this CCP/EIS (62 FR 52764, October 9, 1997; 65 FR 6390, February 9, 2000; and 67 FR 78009, December 20, 2002). During the Draft CCP/EIS comment period that occurred from December 20, 2002 to February 21, 2003, the Service received a total of 1,717 comments (e-mails, letters, faxes, postcards, comment sheets, visits, or telephone calls). All substantive issues raised in the comments have been addressed through revisions incorporated in the Final CCP/EIS text or in responses contained in Appendix M of the Final CCP/EIS.

In accordance with 25 CFR part 20, Financial Assistance and Social Services programs, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs designates the following locale as a service area appropriate for the extension of BIA financial assistance and/or social services. The Financial Assistance and Social Services programs regulations at 25 CFR part 20 have full force and effect when extending BIA financial assistance and/or social services into the service area location. The Samish Indian Tribe is authorized to extend financial assistance and social services to eligible tribal members and other eligible Indians who reside within the areas designated below.

Tribe: The Samish Indian Tribe.

Service Area Locations: The counties of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, and San Juan in the State of Washington.

The NPS seeks to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) to address elk management at THRO. Section 4.4.2 of the NPS Management Policies (2001) provides for the active management of native animals when management of a population is necessary because it occurs in unnaturally high or low numbers because of human influence. An elk management strategy is needed at THRO because past and current actions within and beyond the park have created conditions that allow the THRO elk population to increase with little or no control. These conditions include the absence of elk predators, the ineffectiveness of public hunting outside of the park as a population control method for elk that range primarily within the park, lack of significant winter kill and other environmentally-caused elk mortalities, high reproductive and survival rates, and the discontinuation of translocating elk from the park.

Elk were reintroduced to the South Unit (SU) of THRO in 1985 to restore an extirpated native species. The SU is surrounded by a 7 foot high woven-wire fence, which has specially designed crossings to allow for movement of most wildlife, yet confines bison and feral horses in the park. Large predators have been extirpated since the late 1800s, and effective natural predation on ungulates is limited to that which occurs on young by coyotes and bobcats. Since elk reintroduction in 1985, the population has doubled approximately every 3 years. Research was initiated in 1985 to provide insight into the forage requirements of elk and other grazers in the SU. The resulting model, which considered the forage needs of all ungulates in the park, suggested the park could maintain up to 360 elk. Since 1993, the population has exceeded 360 several times, causing subsequent removals through translocation to tribes and other agencies. A third removal was scheduled for January 2003 but canceled due to concerns about chronic wasting disease (CWD). Although CWD has not been found in North Dakota, the NPS policy dictates that translocation of elk may only occur if the animals are free of disease. Currently, the elk herd numbers about 550, exceeding the maximum number of animals the model suggested can be sustained long-term without negatively affecting other park resources.

A determination of the effects of the elk management plan will be conducted in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4372 et seq. ), NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal regulations, and the NPS procedures and policies for compliance with those regulations.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the USFS will serve as Cooperating Agencies in the preparation of the EIS, per NEPA guidelines.

If you wish to comment on the scoping brochure or any other issues associated with the plan, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. Written comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the Superintendent at the address above. You may e-mail comments to thro_forum@nps.gov . Please submit internet comments as a text file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please put in the subject line “Elk Management Plan,” and include your name and return address in your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your message, contact Bruce Kaye, Public Information Officer, at the number listed above.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There, also, may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Under the World Heritage Convention, both the United States and Canada are required to submit a country-specific periodic report and a joint regional periodic report for North America, by the end of 2004. Periodic reporting provides the World Heritage Committee with an overview of each participating nation's implementation of the World Heritage Convention and a “snapshot” of current conditions at World Heritage Sites.

In 1998, the World Heritage Committee approved a periodic reporting format and process to provide up-to-date information about the application of the World Heritage Convention and the state of conservation of World Heritage Sites around the world. The Periodic Report for North America (followed by the Periodic Report for Europe) once accepted by the World Heritage Committee, represent the conclusion of the first cycle of periodic reporting by the various regions of the world as defined by the World Heritage Committee.

Each periodic report is comprised of three sections:

In Section I , each country reports on the application of the World Heritage Convention. This includes: Identifying properties of cultural or natural value on their territory; legal measures and efforts to protect, conserve and present cultural and natural heritage; international cooperation and fund-raising; and education, information and awareness-building activities.

Section II describes the state of conservation of specific World Heritage Sites located in each country and updates the information that was provided to the World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription. The main objective is to assess whether the World Heritage values, for which the property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, are being maintained over time.

The National Park Service is responsible for developing the United States' country-specific periodic report and Parks Canada is responsible for developing Canada's country-specific periodic report. The United States and Canada worked together to develop the third component, a joint regional report outlining the major strengths and issues facing World Heritage in the region as a whole. Both countries have coordinated consultations with World Heritage Site managers and information sharing with key stakeholders.

The ultimate objective is to produce concise, accurate periodic reports for both the United States and Canada, and a joint regional periodic report for North America that fully address the requirements of the World Heritage convention and focus on the criteria established by the World Heritage Committee.

Public Comment Solicitation: Persons wishing to comment on these documents may do so by mailing written comments to Stephen Morris, National Park Service, Office of International Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW., (org. code 0050), Washington, DC 20240. They also may submit written comment via e-mail to WASO_Office_of_International_Affairs@nps.gov (include name and return address in the e-mail message).

The NPS practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Pacific Coast Feather Company, is as of this date, reinstated as an eligible bidder on Federal and federally assisted contracts and subcontracts.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the Matter of Honeywell International, Inc., Metropolis Works Facility of the issuance of an order modifying License (SUB-526) (ML042240002) (Effective Immediately).

Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell” or the “licensee”) holds Materials License No. SUB-526, issued by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess and transfer byproduct and source material in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 10 CFR parts 30 and 40. Commission regulations at 10 CFR § 20.1801, require the licensee to secure licensed material from unauthorized removal or access from controlled or unrestricted areas. Further, License Condition 10 of Materials License No. SUB-526, as amended, requires the licensee to implement and maintain specific measures to control public and private access to the facility as described in the October 1, 1998, enclosure to its application dated September 23, 1998.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and Local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.

As a result of its initial consideration of the current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission issued a Confirmatory Action Letter, No. RIII-01-005, dated December 21, 2001 to Honeywell, confirming the Licensee's agreement to immediately implement enhanced security measures and review longer term security enhancements to the site. On March 29, 2002 the Commission issued an Order to Honeywell to put the actions taken in response to the advisories in the established regulatory framework and implement additional enhancements which emerged from the NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has now determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, set forth in Attachment 1 1 of this Order, which supplement existing regulatory requirements and any previously issued Order, to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and the common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.

The Commission recognizes that some of the requirements set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order may already have been initiated by Honeywell in response to previously issued advisories, Confirmatory Action Letter No. RIII-01-005, the March 29, 2002 Order or on its own. It also recognizes that some measures may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances or characteristics existing at the licensee's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on safe operation. Although the licensee's response to the Safeguards Threat Advisories and the March 29, 2002 Order has been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety, the Commission believes that the response must be supplemented because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures.

In order to provide assurance that the licensee is implementing prudent measures to achieve an appropriate level of protection to meet the current threat environment, Materials License No. SUB-526 is modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.202, I find that, in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 63, 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR § 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 40, It Is Hereby Ordered, Effective Immediately, That Materials License No. SUB-526 Is Modified as Follows:

A. The licensee shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Licensee shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than 180 days from the date of this Order , with the exception of the additional security measure B.4., which shall be implemented no later than 365 days from the date of this Order .

B. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, notify the Commission, (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.

2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact safe operation of the facility, the Licensee must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination and that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility procedures and practices to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1.

C. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1.

2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission, when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.

D. Notwithstanding any provision of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained pending until the Commission determines otherwise.

Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1 and C.2 above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 30.6 and 40.5. In addition, Licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.

The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, modify, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of the Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that decontrolled answers, (no Safeguards Information) and requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR § 2.714(d). If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error.

In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An Answer or a Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay the Immediate Effectiveness of This Order.